Category talk:Spell Swords
=Remove Divine Caster?= I am thinking that maybe we should reserve the Spellswords page for Arcane Spellswords, because all the Divine Caster by default are already Melee capable. Seriously, if you look at the Divine Character Builds page, all of them are melee based. What do you guys think? Edit: We can then move it as a subcategory under the Arcane Character Builds. -JeminiZero :Well, I'm not an expert on spellswords, so I don't know what different styles of melee-magic are around. I figured that if someone uses spells to boost his melee eficiency and then uses primarily melee to finish enemies off, then it qualifies as spell sword. I don't see much of a difference between clercs and mags in that regard. That being said, it would surely help sorting purposes if we had arcane spellswords and divine spellswords (what are paladins and rangers btw. ? ). --DirtyFinger 12:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC) ::I would say that a spellsword isn't necessarily someone who uses magic to boost melee power. Rather he is someone who can both melee and cast spells reasonably well, (whtehr or not the melee is magically enchanced) and can use one or the other depending on the situation. E.g. vs weak Monsters, he can kill them with his blade, and save his spells. Against bosses, he can unleash his strongest spells, to try and bring it down as quickly as possible. ::The difference between Arcane and Diine spellswords is certainly huge. The Divine casters can heal, while the Arcane Casters can nuke. Splitting them into Arcane Spellswords and Divine Spellswords would probably work. We may also want to add a "Pure Melee" subcategory for warriors which rely on few or no buffs or magic at all. ::I would say that Ranger and Druids while casting Divine spells, are not primary Divine Casters in their own right, certainly not like Clerics and Druids. Put another way, Ranger spellcasting doesn't even come close to a Cleric (or even a Bard for that matter). These might qualify as "Pure Melee" as they rely very little on their spells, and can for the most part live without them.-JeminiZero :::Hmm ... well, we already have arcane, divine, magic, melee and spellsword categories. arcane, divine and spellsword are subcategories of magic. you are proposing three new categories in exchange for spellsword - arcane spellsword, divine spellsword, melee buffer. you could even split that last one up in divine and arcane buffer. do you think the benefits you expect outweigh the additional complexity ? I already think that it was a mistake to implement the magic build category. anyway, i suggest you take that topic to either the nwn2 general forum or even better to the epic character builders guild part deux. i'm not too happy with the categories either but i'd rather have it easier than more complex. best to ask the pros. :) --DirtyFinger 17:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC) ::::I think I could have phrased that better. What I am proposing is that: ::::1. Spellswords split into Arcane and Divine spellswords, which become subcategories on the Arcane Caster page, Divine Caster Page respectively. ::::2. Both Divine and Arcane Spellswords will also be placed under the Melee Builds category ::::3. New Subcategory of "Pure Melee" which refers to Melee fighters with little or no reliance on buffs, such as the Kama no Kaze. This subcategory will be placed within the Melee Character builds category ::::Put simply, the Category sequence would be: :::::Divine Caster -> Divine Spellswords :::::Arcane Caster -> Arcane Spellswords :::::Melee Builds -> Arcane Spellswords, Divine Spellswords, Pure Melee ::::We could also remove the Magic Character Build entirely. I think the Divine and Arcane categories are enough.-JeminiZero :::::Sounds good so far. Let's ditch the Magic Character Builds category and just keep arcane and divine with spellsword subcategories. We put those spellsword categories in melee, along with the dual-wield. I thought about the pure melee part and I have to reluctantly agree that it makes sense, so let's do that, too. Any other distinct playing styles that deserve a category of their own, like sneakers or hipsters ? ---DirtyFinger 19:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)